Has anyone suggested that opening things up more would not lead to any increases in infections, hospitalizations or deaths? The point is that there have not yet been dire consequences anywhere that restrictions were eased.
This situation is no different than any other cost benefit analysis we have to do as a society. The same analysis that tells us that 30,000 to 40,000 annual car accident fatalities are acceptable, that increasing the maximum speed limit from 55 to 65 or 75 miles per hour is okay even though we know it leads to more deaths. The same analysis that has led us as a society to conclude that we won't shut things down in order to save 20,000 to 50,000 people from dying from Influenza each year.
The shut down was implemented in an attempt to avoid our healthcare system from being overwhelmed. Turns out we never got close to that happening. Thank God for that. But to suggest that everyone has to remain in lockdown so there are no increases in infections, hospitalizations or deaths would be completely nuts.
How many jobs should we be willing to sacrifice going forward in order to minimize COVID-19 deaths? I don't hear anyone opposing opening things up answering that question. But that's the cost benefit analysis that has to be done.
At this point, start opening things up everywhere (with reasonable restrictions on numbers of people permitted), tell people to wash their hands, wear masks and continue social distancing. People who are at high risk should stay isolated. Everyone else gets to decide whether or not to enter a restaurant, bar, etc. Just large gatherings such as theatres, concerts, sporting events and the like should be completely prohibited for the time being.
Monitor what happens and make adjustments according to the actual data. We know all the models have been garbage without actual data.
Putting 40 million people out of work to limit deaths is not a sustainable strategy.
